FALSAFEH
Year:2019 | Volume:46 | Issue:2 |Papers Count:7

In this paper, we will focus on the relation of language and logic in Hegel’ s philosophy. First, we will distinguish between two important aspects of language, that is, the semiological aspect and the semantical. As we will see, language in the first aspect is solely considered as a system based on grammatical rules or as a structure of signs. But when, in a concrete way, the semantical aspect of language is also taken into account, we will encounter language as the general realm of representations. It is in this context that Hegel considers language, as the realm of representations, to be the basis for a kind of knowledge by acquaintance, which is the condition and the presupposition of philosophical knowledge. Thirdly, we will show that language as the basis of knowledge through familiarity is the very beginning of the Phenomenology of Spirit. It is for this reason that Hegel considers Phenomenology to be a ladder of ascension of common consciousness to the level of philosophical consciousness. In other words, the dialectical progression of the forms of consciousness begins from the level of common consciousness and common language and ultimately reaches the level of logic as the truth of language. In the end, it becomes clear that the realm of Hegel’ s logic is precisely the inversion of common consciousness, and in this sense we can say that language is the potential logic and logic is the actual language.

The ‘ pragmatic maxim’ is basis of Pierce’ s pragmatism. To form this maxim, Pierce was influenced by Descartes’ s and Kant’ s ideas – especially Descartes’ s term of ‘ clearness’ and Kant’ s interpretation of “ Pragma” . At first step, Pierce defined clearness from Descartes’ s and Leibniz’ s points of view; however, he found these points of view insufficient and criticized them. After that, he presented his own pragmatic maxim and introduced this maxim as the highest level of clearness. In order to give a name to this maxim, Pierce selected the term of ‘ Pragma’ (instead of ‘ practice’ ), because-based on Kant’ s view-‘ experience’ absolutely interferes in the meaning of pragma. The pragmatic maxim, is a logical maxim that was outlined in Pierce’ s ‘ research theory’ and it is focused on a sensible practical effect created after every theory. In research theory, Pierce discussed ‘ opinion’ as it makes the human ready to act. According to Pierce’ s discussion, the task of human’ s thought is ‘ to create habit’ , and the identity of habit is ‘ to direct into action’ . As a result, Pierce made a connection between opinion, action, habit, and sensible and practical effects of opinion. The Pragmatic maxim is also a semantic maxim and its main functions are clearing the metaphysics’ dilemmas and clarifying that some of its terms are meaningless.

Although the loss Books and literature of Muhammad ibn Zakariya al-Razi made it difficult to study his ideas, but the study of the remains of his works Shows that happiness is an important issue for him. Razi believes that happiness is the same as getting free from pain and suffering and because the pragmatic world is filled with suffering. Therefore, Human happiness is freedom from this. Zakariya believes that human beings are able to reach happiness without the help of religion and only with the help of reason. He believes that philosophy and a philosophical character is the only way to prosper and achieve real happiness. In his intellectual system philosophy has an Essential role on human happiness In this article the Proof of these claims is presented and the way that philosophy could help you achieve happiness, has been discussed in detail. His philosophy is not about the concept that is commonplace today and refers to the first philosophy, but rather means the right way of life and the health of the heart from spiritual illness. He emphasizes that, as we need physicians and physicians for the treatment of physical illnesses, we will also need mental health for the elimination of mental illness.

This article investigates the necessity of a Leibnizian re-interpretation of Aristotelian theory of change. Substance-seeking attitude in Aristotle’ s philosophy of nature has been by no means something uncertain or shrouded in doubt, but its prominence and its aspects and consequences are better laid bare when seen in the light of Leibnizian Monadology. Briefly the claim is that some Aristotelian remarks and theories should be amended and some falsified if the immanency of substance is to be taken seriously. The paradigm of this immanency is the Leibnizian conception of metaphysical substance or monad. Monadological approach, deeming any influence from without impossible, bases the explanation solely on the spontaneity and immanency of substance. Thus Having had been imprisoned in the labyrinth of Aristotelian physics – esp. in the concepts of dynamis, physis, entelechia and energeia, in the distinction between the mover and the moved and in the differentiation between natural and artificial beings-, the Minotaur eventually escaped the maze and now is clearly discernable: It is nothing but “ Being as Unfolding” . Historically and genealogically this article hardly bears anything noteworthy or informative, since the emphasis is on a philosophical reappraisal, and not just an interpretation, of Aristotelian theory of change. Sometimes being Aristotelian requires saying “ nay! ” to Aristotle.

In contemporary metaphysics, there are two main approaches to the nature of persistence of objects through time: according to three-dimensionalism, objects are wholly present at every moment of their existence, whereas in a four dimensionalist picture, objects persistence through time is analogous to their extension through space and is a matter of possessing different temporal parts at each subinterval of their lifetime. One major version of this theory known as stage theory, maintains that ordinary objects are instantaneous stages which persist through time by having different temporal counterparts at different times (temporal stages which are bound together by temporal counterpart relation). One of the main objections to this view is that it fails to genuinely account for objects’ persistence through time. The aim of this paper is twofold: first we present the stage-theoretic account of persistence and some of its correlative problems (namely the problems of temporal instantiation, reference and timeless counting) and then, we mention some difficulties arise from adopting such an account. Quite apart from the deficiency of its analysis of persistence and temporal instantiation and different objections which are raised to it in this regard, stage theory strategies for the problem of timeless counting seem to be at odds with standard criteria of numerical unity and multiplicity.

Ghazali in his different works says that every human being born on a clean nature, but his/her parents drive them to a certain religion or sect. He uses the concept of Fetrah in different meanings and functions. Based on religious anthropology, Gazali believes that we cannot affirm simply that the Fetrah that humans born based on it, in completely correspond with the religion of Islam. This is not the same thing that majority of Muslim theologians believe to it. In addition, for achieving Truth, we should notice to the main Fetrah not to the imitation. Gazali in his two works, Almahak alnazar and Alehya o Alolum, by a logical approach to the Fetrah, sometimes takes it the same thing with Reason (Aghl) and sometimes believes that it is the intuitional instrument for logical reasonings. In this article, we try to investigate the different meanings and functions of Fetrah in the Gazali's Works and survey that to some extent, He affected by the Avicenna's works and thoughts. Also we will try to show that Gazali in his different works, logical or philosophical or theological, notices to the different functions of Fetrah, for example, religious function and logical and also epistemological functions.

Throughout history, “ the objectivity of moral concepts and judgments” has been an issue of crucial importance to a great number of philosophers. Philippa Foot, a British philosopher, and one of the founders of the contemporary virtue ethics, is among the most inspiring philosophers regarding this issue and her last theory regarding it is well known as an influential project. In this theory, Philippa Foot contends that moral judgments belong to the category of judgments, which are based on natural goodness. In this view, natural goodness of an organism will be extracted based on the “ life-form” of its species. After a brief Explanation of philippa Foot’ s theory regarding the objectivity of moral concepts and judgments, in this article, by formulating a dialogue between her critics and advocates, we attempt to analyze the theory of natural goodness and show that the struggle between the opponents and proponents is due to different interpretations of “ human life” ; interpretations based on happiness and agency. Although the interpretation based on agency can defend foot’ s theory of natural goodness against some critiques, it creates different set of questions and problems which should be considered.